The enclosed note does not warrant a reply, except to state that it does not
warrant a reply.
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Jones [mailto:sejones@ibm.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 5:17 AM
> To: Calvin Evolution Reflector
> Cc: John E. Rylander
> Subject: Re: The Anti-Evolutionary Arguments We See Here
>
>
> John
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:11:13 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>
> JR>As one who's really open to God having done things via natural means
> or not
>
> I am not aware of you ever seriously considering whether "God" had "done
> things via" any other means but "natural". Could you please give examples?
>
> JR>I must confess dismay at the chronically low quality of the anti-
> >evolutionary arguments presented here. I guess I'm echoing what Howard
> >said here, for reasons complementary to those he expressed.
>
> Of course there are "low quality...anti-evolutionary arguments".
> But there
> are also "low quality" *evolutionary* "arguments." But you rarely if ever
> complain about them. From where I sit your *real* objection seems to be
> to "anti-evolutionary arguments" per se.
>
> JR>There are some significant arguments to be made, in my view, along the
> >lines of evolutionary theory being the best scientific theory by
> far but NOT
> >therefore being either precisely and exhaustively true nor even being
> >demonstrably -likely- to be precisely and exhaustively true
> (perhaps it's
> >akin to Newtonian physics, e.g., and in any event ET's insight
> is limited to
> >the scientifically accessible aspects of the physical world,
> contra >Dawkins).
>
> Until the criteria for "scientific" is decoupled from materialism and
> naturalism, "evolutionary theory" is *by definition* "the best
> scientific"
> theory" since it is the *only* "scientific theory."
>
> For instance, Darwinists routinely claim that "evolution is a fact":
>
> "evolution is a fact, not a theory," (Sagan C., "Cosmos", 1980, p27) and
> Ruse, that "Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (his emphasis). (Ruse M.,
> "Darwinism Defended", 1982, p58). Asimov writes that" the evidence in
> favor of evolution is so strong that no reputable biologist
> doubts the fact .,"
> (Asimov I., "In the Beginning", 1981, p40)" (Bird W. R., "The Origin of
> Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville,
> 1991, Vol. II, pp128-129).
>
> If "evolution is a fact", how can there even *be* any other "scientific
> theory" but evolution?
>
> Indeed Sir Julian Huxley, co-founder of Neo-Darwinism said that:
> "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms
> from the sphere of rational discussion." (Huxley S., in Hitching F., "The
> Neck of the Giraffe," 1982, p254).
>
> JR>As a corollary, one could further argue that we should in principal be
> >prepared to accept things like ID theory -should they ever prove
> >empirically/scientifically superior- to evolutionary theory (which they
> >certainly don't -right now-).
>
> By this `Freudian slip' you admit you are *not* even "in
> principle prepared
> to accept things like ID theory". So how *could* "ID theory...ever prove
> empirically/scientifically superior- to evolutionary theory"
> while your are
> not even "in principle prepared to accept" it?
>
> JR>But instead, from nearly all anti-evolutionary comers, we get some
> >higher or lower degree of rhetorical sophistication combined with
> >scientific and logical dross, pretty much always in the directions of
> >grotesque caricature, gross exaggeration, or just sloppy confusion.
>
> Since by your own admission you are not even "in principle prepared to
> accept things like ID theory", then to you all
> "anti-evolutionary" arguments
> *must* fall into the categories of "higher or lower" degrees "of
> rhetorical
> sophistication"!
>
> Your bias is evident in that you don't even distinguish between what
> Ratzch calls the "upper and lower tier" of "the creationist movement":
>
> "But there is barely beginning to emerge a new generation of creationists
> with legitimate and relevant credentials who are undertaking to
> actually do
> some of the painstaking, detailed drudgery that underlies any
> genuinely live
> scientific program. This emergence has begun to produce a separation in
> the creationist movement-an upper and lower tier, so to speak. I
> think that
> what ultimately separates the two tiers is different levels of
> respect for
> accuracy and completeness of detail, and different levels of
> awareness that
> a theory's looking good in vague and general form is an enormously
> unreliable predictor of whether in the long run the theory will be
> disemboweled by recalcitrant technical details." (Ratzsch D.L.,
> "The Battle
> of Beginnings," 1996, p82)
>
> JR>It's a pity. It really is.
>
> These are just crocodile tears. It is not "a pity" - it is
> *inevitable* given
> your own admission you and your ilk are not even "in
> principle...prepared to
> accept things like ID theory."
>
> Steve
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
> 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
> Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
> Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>